7 ms·

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryException https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryEx... The GPL carves out exceptio

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryException https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryEx... The GPL carves out exceptions for the use of system libraries. But, as for the "dangerous" part: * I work in an industry in which software patents are required to survive. Personally, I hate software patents, but it is a reality until the law changes. As such, the GPL invalidates patents, making anything GPL completely off limits. That means that I would not have a job, and then there would be fewer competitors in the marketplace, which would make prices rise considerably. Too bad, too, because we would donate back improvements that are general enough to benefit others. Rather, now we just use proprietary solutions wholly because GPL is a minefield for us. * I have personal projects. I write code that I want to use myself as well as allow others to use. I use MIT because GPL discourages that somewhat (the point above). I may want to use my personal projects commercially some day. MIT allows that; GPL makes it impossible. In other words, if I choose GPL today, I have poisoned that code from myself for the rest of my life. In short GPL is not "free" as in freedom, because it comes with strings attached. It's communist in philosophy, but I hesitate to say that because then everybody jumps to some *a priori* conclusion of what they are now convinced that I'm saying, without listening to what I'm actually saying. GPL says, in short, that the software is freely available for public use, but not for private use. (Yes, there are nuances to that, so much so (and so confusing) that most people either just ignore it, or say "IANAL...") It demands that 100% of the work of anyone in the future must be donated back to the collective for free. That is not freedom. Create as much GPL code as you like. I create MIT. You can use mine (and I'm happy for you to!), but I can't use yours because of the restrictions you put on it. We can let the future decide which is more "free".

openthc 3y ago
IIRC, it's not about private use but about distribution. We publish libraries under MIT, since other corporate users would very likely need to distribute those. But the higher-level Apps we publish under GPL, so that downstream is obligated to keep it open-source (but there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream). And there are more than a few companies that use our GPL stuff, internally and don't redistrubute and therefore don't have to make their internal modifications available under GPL -- because there is no distribution happening. I'm not a lawyer but our decision was informed by one who has prior experience in IP, licensing and specifically FOSS-style licenses.
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  Yes, distribution is the key. Suppose that my company has powerful video editing software that we sell (which is distribution). Consider that it has unique functionality and has taken a decade to develop by a team of developers, all of whom have salaries, insurance, retirement, etc. that need to be paid, otherwise the software would not exist. Proprietary code and profit are more than appropriate in this situation, as I believe that workers should reap the reward of their labor and investment. Now, suppose that a new feature is wanted. There is a project that provides that functionality, but it is licensed GPL. Can I use it? Absolutely not! Because, if I do, then I am obligated to release all of my source code in addition, because it integrates with the GPL code. It is financial suicide for my business to do so (which, btw, is a political preference for many of the GPL proponents). What will I do instead? I will probably just have my developer write our own version, adding in the extra features that we need. Contrast that with the MIT-licensed code. We can use it without fear, and we will probably even submit enhancements back to the project, simply because it makes our lives easier in the future for maintenance. GPL poisons downstream, simple as that. You are correct that there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream, but there is a requirement for my source code to be made available under the same GPL license. GPL is "infectious" (or "viral", take your pick of words). The funny thing is, I believe in freedom with software, but my interpretation of "free" is vastly different than the GPL interpretation of "free". And, as I said, I put my money where my mouth is... almost everything I write (except for my job) is MIT licensed code.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    It's really weird that you describe requiring reciprocation as poisoning downstream. Proprietary software also doesn't allow you to just incorporate their code in your proprietary software and distribute it. Nobody described plain jane closed source software as "infectious" even though by any reasonable definition it is vastly more so. Open source software will let you remediate the situation by removing it or open sourcing it without penalty while closed source software if incorporated without following the license will see the owners lawyers crunching your bones to suck out the marrow. If GPL is a cold then proprietary software is ebola. In the overwhelming number of cases the party is selling something other than their software and you are equally free to negotiate a different license with the developer if you have different needs.
musicale 3y ago
> I work in an industry in which software patents are required to survive Thanks for the explanation! I wonder what the industry is (maybe finance or law or ??) It seems that in most of the tech industry software patents are primarily used as a war chest for large companies or for non-practicing entities focused on litigation. Usually execution is more important.
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  I work in a suprisingly innovative industry... tolling! Seriously, there's some surprising work being done in the field, and software patents play a big part for companies that are very active in the space. It's like the stock market. A lot of millionairs have money in stocks, but so, too, does the average Wal-Mart employee (at least it was an option when I was a cashier 20 years ago!). In other words, even small companies can gain a competative advantage with just a patent or two.
MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
> if I choose GPL today, I have poisoned that code from myself for the rest of my life If you're the copyright holder, the terms of the GPL don't apply to you. It's a license that you give to other people. You can't revoke the license, of course. But as long as you haven't accepted contributions from other people, you can "fork" your own project and take it closed-source. (I agree with your analysis in general. Most people don't understand the restrictions placed by the GPL.)
- coreyp_1 3y ago
  Yup! Thanks for pointing that out. And that was my thought in general... I want to write projects that others want to contribute to, without painting myself into a corner.

openthc 3y ago

IIRC, it's not about private use but about distribution. We publish libraries under MIT, since other corporate users would very likely need to distribute those. But the higher-level Apps we publish under GPL, so that downstream is obligated to keep it open-source (but there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream). And there are more than a few companies that use our GPL stuff, internally and don't redistrubute and therefore don't have to make their internal modifications available under GPL -- because there is no distribution happening. I'm not a lawyer but our decision was informed by one who has prior experience in IP, licensing and specifically FOSS-style licenses.

coreyp_1 3y ago
Yes, distribution is the key. Suppose that my company has powerful video editing software that we sell (which is distribution). Consider that it has unique functionality and has taken a decade to develop by a team of developers, all of whom have salaries, insurance, retirement, etc. that need to be paid, otherwise the software would not exist. Proprietary code and profit are more than appropriate in this situation, as I believe that workers should reap the reward of their labor and investment. Now, suppose that a new feature is wanted. There is a project that provides that functionality, but it is licensed GPL. Can I use it? Absolutely not! Because, if I do, then I am obligated to release all of my source code in addition, because it integrates with the GPL code. It is financial suicide for my business to do so (which, btw, is a political preference for many of the GPL proponents). What will I do instead? I will probably just have my developer write our own version, adding in the extra features that we need. Contrast that with the MIT-licensed code. We can use it without fear, and we will probably even submit enhancements back to the project, simply because it makes our lives easier in the future for maintenance. GPL poisons downstream, simple as that. You are correct that there is no obligation to submit a PR upstream, but there is a requirement for my source code to be made available under the same GPL license. GPL is "infectious" (or "viral", take your pick of words). The funny thing is, I believe in freedom with software, but my interpretation of "free" is vastly different than the GPL interpretation of "free". And, as I said, I put my money where my mouth is... almost everything I write (except for my job) is MIT licensed code.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  It's really weird that you describe requiring reciprocation as poisoning downstream. Proprietary software also doesn't allow you to just incorporate their code in your proprietary software and distribute it. Nobody described plain jane closed source software as "infectious" even though by any reasonable definition it is vastly more so. Open source software will let you remediate the situation by removing it or open sourcing it without penalty while closed source software if incorporated without following the license will see the owners lawyers crunching your bones to suck out the marrow. If GPL is a cold then proprietary software is ebola. In the overwhelming number of cases the party is selling something other than their software and you are equally free to negotiate a different license with the developer if you have different needs.

musicale 3y ago

> I work in an industry in which software patents are required to survive Thanks for the explanation! I wonder what the industry is (maybe finance or law or ??) It seems that in most of the tech industry software patents are primarily used as a war chest for large companies or for non-practicing entities focused on litigation. Usually execution is more important.

coreyp_1 3y ago
I work in a suprisingly innovative industry... tolling! Seriously, there's some surprising work being done in the field, and software patents play a big part for companies that are very active in the space. It's like the stock market. A lot of millionairs have money in stocks, but so, too, does the average Wal-Mart employee (at least it was an option when I was a cashier 20 years ago!). In other words, even small companies can gain a competative advantage with just a patent or two.

MatthiasPortzel 3y ago

> if I choose GPL today, I have poisoned that code from myself for the rest of my life If you're the copyright holder, the terms of the GPL don't apply to you. It's a license that you give to other people. You can't revoke the license, of course. But as long as you haven't accepted contributions from other people, you can "fork" your own project and take it closed-source. (I agree with your analysis in general. Most people don't understand the restrictions placed by the GPL.)

coreyp_1 3y ago
Yup! Thanks for pointing that out. And that was my thought in general... I want to write projects that others want to contribute to, without painting myself into a corner.